Tammy Bruce Talks About Rick Perry, The Dangers of Gardasil, and Crony Capitalism That Surrounds Governor's Office

By Gary P Jackson

Meant to post this the other day after Stacy Drake wrote about some of the pay-for-play dealings Rick Perry is famous for. Since then we've learned more about the dangers of Gardasil.

Meanwhile, Tammy Bruce calls out Perry for wanting to inject this potential poison in Texas school girls. As she points out, in typical Perry weasel fashion, he claims he saw the error of his ways and backed off. The fact is, Texans raised holy hell, and the Texas legislature stopped Perry, something they've had to do before.

You see, the position of Governor of Texas is constitutionally weak. But unlike previous governors, Rick Perry has often chosen to usurp the legislative process and issue an executive orders time and time again. This almost always gets him in trouble, and the legislature has to deal with his messes.

The Gardasil mandate would have never made it through the Texas legislature, and Perry knew it.

This may not seem like a big deal to some, but Perry is the sort who would do the same thing in Washington. As Dan Riehl pointed out on Thursday, Rick Perry is very much aligned with the establishment. As he put it:

For what it’s worth, I’m getting a sense that, within the conservative movement, Perry may come to more represent the old line conservative movement, much of which is seriously compromised as a result of having been established in Washington for so long.

In other words, Perry represents business as usual, the very last thing we need in a new president.

It should trouble voters that Perry has no respect for the Texas Constitution and the legislative process set forth in it. It should trouble them even more that he was willing inject innocent Texas school girls with a drug that hadn't been fully tested, and has issues, all so his buddies at Merck could make a quick buck.

One correction to Tammy's monologue, it's not $120 per student, it's $360. It's a three shot regimen. That's retail, but even at wholesale prices a lot of money for Perry's cronies.

Something for voters to ponder. Between forcing people [mandating] a medical treatment, and all of the pay-for-play crony capitalism that surrounds the Texas governor's office, how exactly is Rick Perry much of an upgrade from Barack Obama?

Throw in the fact he's tripled Texas' debt since taking office and ... well ... you get the idea.

Oh Look, Mitt Romney, After Sticking His Finger In The Wind, Actually Has Opinion On Debt Deal!

By Gary P Jackson

Noted Profile in Courage Mitt Romney has finally spoken up about the debt debate. In the eleventh hour the human windsock, seeing the anger of the people, over the prospect of this deal passing, has come out against it:

After days of refusing to take a position on the high-stakes budget talks, Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney came out on Monday against a last-minute deal to avoid a potentially economy-rattling government default.

Am I the only one who laughs uncontrollably when someone calls Romney the "front runner"? Not sure what's more pathetic, calling this lump the front runner, or Hot Air's Tina Korbe's attempt to spin this as a positive for old Mitt:

Perhaps the statement lacks the credibility it would have carried had he been a long-time and vocal supporter of Cut, Cap and Balance, but I’m still pleased to see the ostensible GOP frontrunner (more on that later) tack to the right on this. Maybe he’s merely adhering to the time-tested strategy of pandering to the base in a primary, but it’s still encouraging, especially because he specifically cited the two most truly objectionable aspects of the new deal as the reasons for his opposition, which puts him on the record against tax hikes in the special commission’s recommendations.

Either (a) he really means what he says and thinks a more forward-thinking, long-term approach like Cut, Cap and Balance would be better than the milquetoast deal the president and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell mustered at the last-minute or (b) he’s begun to feel the heat from his relentlessly conservative competitors in the GOP primary and recognizes that he’s going to have to pump up his conservative credentials if he wants to win the race. Certainly, with this position, Romney join the ranks of some solid organizations and individuals.

Haven't we had enough of politicians who just tell us what they think we want to hear, whether they believe a damned word of it or not?

I guess joining the right side of the fight now is better than nothing, but Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States. This is a position that requires strong leadership, not polled and focus-grouped to death responses.

Here's where Romney, if he was an actual leader, could have made a difference. Though he's in no way ever going to be the Republican nominee, the media and the GOP elites want people to believe he's the "front runner." A smart leader would have used that status he enjoys and stood up and spoken out forcefully for what he believes in.

Romney could have written an op-ed for any newspaper in the country advocating for his position. Romney could go on any news program and do the same. Instead, he's basically hid out and waited until literally hours before the vote, when it will make no difference whatsoever.

This is not leadership. A true leader would have been out there for months hammering it all home. Romney is not a leader. He's someone who sits around, waits to see which way the winds blow, and then says: "Me too!" We don't have time for people like this.

American needs leadership. Strong leadership from people that don't have to take a poll before acting. We need someone who knows what to do right from the start. That ain't Mitt Romney.

Profile In Courage: Mitt Romney Refuses To Engage In Debt Ceiling Debate

By Gary P Jackson

It seems human windsock Mitt Romney can't figure out which way the political winds are blowing in the heated debate over what to do regarding our unsustainable debt, so rather than take a stand, he does what he always does when the going gets tough, he hides out.

Emphasis mine:

Romney still hasn’t taken a position on Boehner’s bill: NBC’s Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner’s legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done).

Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?

Leaders lead and Romney is no leader. For years we have been told that Romney is the "money guy." The one that understands business and the economy. This situation is the one Romney supporters would have you believe is tailor made for their boy, and yet, when asked about his position, he punts. A real Profile in Courage this Mitt Romney is.

This is the time for leaders to stand up and be heard. Romney's silence is deafening.

Tim Pawlenty: "The Era Of SMALL Government Is Over"

The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive.
~ Tim Pawlenty, 2006

On Monday liberal "Republican" Tim Pawlenty will officially announce his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Pawlenty and his supporters will tell you that he's a good Conservative leader and ramble on and on how this milquetoast is "the only one who can beat Obama." Don't fall for it.

Oh, I think Obama is incredibly beatable, and maybe a liberal like Pawlenty can pull it off, but so what? If someone like Pawlenty wins, what exactly have the American people won?

The above 2006 Pawlenty quote comes from the Wall Street Journal and an article by James Lewis entitled, Pawlenty's Record: [emphasis mine]

"The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive."
-- Tim Pawlenty, 2006.

Minnesota's 47-year-old governor is now one of a handful of names being bandied about as a possible running mate for John McCain. But if the Arizona senator wants to unite conservative Republicans behind him, there are better choices.

First elected in 2002, Mr. Pawlenty got off to a good start by holding the line on taxes in the face of a $4.5 billion state deficit. That shortfall equaled 15% of the state's $28 billion biennial budget, and the pressure on the governor to break his no-new-taxes pledge was unrelenting. Nonetheless, he showed resolve in dealing with Minnesota's recalcitrant liberal elite.

But in 2005, signs of his "progressive" instincts emerged. In a quest for new revenue, Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a "health impact" fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs.

Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days -- although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

In 2006, liberal Democrats (there is no other kind here) proposed a universal health-care behemoth to cover all residents. Mr. Pawlenty responded with a more limited proposal to expand the state's child health-care program, Minnesota Care, to cover all children. More recently, the governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force recommended imposing a mandate -- à la Massachusetts -- on residents to buy health insurance.

On prescription drugs, Mr. Pawlenty set up the state's RX Connect Program to import price-controlled Canadian drugs. The South St. Paul populist also advocated a temporary ban on ads paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Not exactly the stuff of which markets are made.

Not everything has been bleak for the right during Mr. Pawlenty's tenure. Last session he vetoed several major spending bills pushed by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party; they were so profligate that his vetoes elicited barely a whimper from Minnesota's reliably liberal media. Nevertheless, Mr. Pawlenty has presided over back-to-back biennial budget increases of 12.4% and 9.8% respectively. Last year the governor's proposed budget survived essentially intact but still spent the state's $2 billion surplus, with half the general fund increase going to education. Minnesota, with five million people, now has a biennial budget of nearly $35 billion.

Mr. Pawlenty's proactive government stance extends to support for mass transit and sport stadium subsidies, as well as for hiking the state's minimum wage, which is now $6.15 an hour for large employers (the federal minimum wage is $5.85). But it is education and the environment where Mr. Pawlenty hopes to establish his progressive bona fides.

He calls for accountability in education, but does little to buck the most powerful lobby in state politics, Education Minnesota. Indeed, Mr. Pawlenty has courted the unions, telling the Minnesota Business Partnership that "I can't have the Republican governor talk about changing the school system without having the support and help of the teachers' union and my friends on the other side of the aisle. It just won't work."

On the environment, Mr. Pawlenty imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country. Other states will be requiring, in coming years, that energy producers get 20% of their electricity from "renewable" sources such as wind, solar or animal manure. In Mr. Pawlenty's Minnesota, the state's largest utility will be required to generate 30% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

Mr. Pawlenty is using his influence through the National Governor's Association to export his ideas across state lines. The NGA meets in Washington, D.C. next week. Look for Mr. Pawlenty to be on hand and stumping for renewable mandates.

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. "It looks like we should have listened to President Carter," he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. "He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don't think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it's not real."

At times it seems that Mr. Pawlenty's first political instinct is to placate liberal critics, as he did following the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis last August. When Rep. James Oberstar, a Democrat, tried to exploit the tragedy that killed 13 people and injured 100 others -- by blaming it on a lack of federal gas tax revenue -- Mr. Pawlenty responded by calling for a state gas tax increase. Thankfully, the governor started backpedaling on that idea almost immediately after proposing it. He now promises to veto any tax increase to come out of the legislature this year (handing down one such veto yesterday).

Yes, I know that Pawlenty was "apologized" for his idiotic romance with the global warming loons, but these days that's nothing more than Kabuki Theater. A ritualized apologize that is for show only. Politicians do it all the time when normal people call B.S. on their wrongheaded ideas.

Want more?

When it was rumored Pawlenty was on John McCain's short list for VP, Michael D. Tanner at the CATO institute wrote: [emphasis mine]

The Washington rumor mill has Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as the leading candidate to be John McCain’s running mate. If so, that would be a clear slap in the face to small-government conservatives.

Tanner goes on to list some of Pawlenty's liberal Big Government ways:

Supported government subsidized health care for all children as the first step toward universal health insurance, and opposed President Bush’s veto of a Democratic bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP) to families earning as much as $83,000 per year.

Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate.

Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare.

Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children.

Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars;
Increased the state’s minimum wage.

Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country.

Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill.

Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

Read more here.

It would appear that Pawlenty's first instinct is always to look at a Big Government liberal way to do things. Every single time.

Oh, but Pawlenty's supporters will protest and proclaim :"He's changed!" Thing is, a leopard can't change it's spots, neither can a Big Government liberal. In April St Louis Today had this little nugget on ethanol:

During Pawlenty's speech, he criticized Wall Street and corporate welfare, what he termed "special deals for some.''

But when asked after the speech about ethanol subsidies—which have come under fired from some fiscal conservatives, but are considered crucial in Iowa, where Pawlenty's campaign could live or die—he hedged.

"We can't just pull the rug out from under the industry,'' he said. "There are going to have to be some changes, but we have to be fair-minded about it.''

Typical, politics over principle.

Never mind ethanol is a junk fuel, is only viable if YOUR tax dollars keep it alive, And who cares if the use of FOOD for FUEL is immoral!

The price of everything made from corn has skyrocketed because of this insane plan. People in third world countries face starvation because of it. Worse yet, it's a very inefficient fuel. It takes more volume of ethanol to do the work of gasoline. In other words, if it takes one unit of gasoline to do a set amount of work, it will take approximately 1.5 units to do the same amount of work with a gasoline-ethanol blend.

Don't take my word for that though. Go down to your local new car dealer. Walk over to where they have their "flex fuel" vehicles parked. Look at the federally mandated window sticker. You'll notice these vehicles get fewer miles per gallon when ethanol is in the tank vs straight gasoline.

Katrina Trinko at National Review has even more about this: [emphasis mine]

What kind of Republican supports high tariffs on imports, dubious green tax credits, and consumption mandates to prop up unprofitable environmental darlings? The ethanol-loving midwestern kind, especially the ones running for president.

Currently, imported ethanol is slapped with a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff, while oil companies receive a 45-cent tax credit per gallon of ethanol blended into their gasoline. Both the tariff and the tax credit have just been extended for another year, thanks to a bipartisan push from Cornbelt politicians. In case these provisions aren’t enough to help the industry hobble its way to satisfying profits, lawmakers also decided to mandate that U.S. consumption of renewable fuels (which will certainly be almost entirely corn-based and cellulosic ethanol) reach 36 billion gallons by 2022. And that’s just the assistance provided on the federal level.

There are four potential midwestern 2012 Republican presidential nominees: Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, South Dakota senator John Thune, and Indiana congressman Mike Pence. When it comes to doling out favors to the ethanol industry, none of them can credibly claim his attitude was “just say no.”


Does it matter? Absolutely: As this year’s tariff and tax-credit extensions showed, even a Tea Party–driven small-government surge can’t stop politicians from kowtowing to the ethanol lobby. Further, a Republican president who is willing to carve out exemptions for ethanol interests will lack credibility when he battles spending or tax breaks benefiting other special interests. And finally, while some claim that ethanol will allow our nation to achieve energy independence, the fact that the highest approved corn-gas blend is only 15 percent ethanol (and is approved only for certain automobile models from 2007 or later) suggests that an America running on corn is unlikely in the extreme.

Let’s examine some midwestern GOP politicians’ records on ethanol.

[ .... ]

In 2008, Alaska governor Sarah Palin got the vice presidential nod, much to the disappointment of one group: the Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA). The group had been hoping that John McCain would pick Pawlenty, according to the trade magazine Ethanol Producer. Pawlenty, the MCGA said, had “more moderate views towards ethanol” than most Republicans. It was a telling endorsement, particularly when compared with the tongue-lashing the MCGA gave the GOP platform that year, which it considered anti-ethanol to the point of being “devastating” to the industry.

The endorsement was well deserved. Throughout his time as governor, Pawlenty has been a friend to ethanol. In 2004, Pawlenty created the JOBZ program, an innovative way to subsidize ethanol. While Minnesota was no longer approving producer payments (13 cents per gallon of ethanol) for new ethanol plants, the JOBZ program offered “a new incentive, one that many investors find nearly as alluring,” gushed Ethanol Producer. JOBZ, the magazine continued, “provides relief from corporate franchise tax, income tax for operators or investors, sales tax on business purchases and capital gains tax, and property taxes. It also provides an employment tax credit for high paying jobs.”

A year later, Pawlenty signed legislation mandating that all gas sold in Minnesota contain 20 percent ethanol by 2013, up from 10 percent. (Since the EPA has not yet approved the 20 percent blend, the mandate will most likely not go into effect in 2013.) In 2005, Pawlenty also urged other states, at a meeting of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition (which had 31 member states at the time), to mandate that all gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by 2010.

The “E85 Everywhere” program, which promoted the 85 percent–ethanol fuel, was launched in 2006. Pawlenty wanted there to be plenty of stations where consumers could purchase E85. He requested $12 million in subsidies for gas-station owners to encourage them to offer it. State legislators balked at the sum; instead, the state began offering $1.75 million in subsidies starting in 2007. But even with the subsidies, Minnesota did not achieve Pawlenty’s goal of 1,800 E85 stations by 2010. As of 2009, the state had 351 gas stations that sold E85.

You can read about more ethanol cost and failure here.

Though not mentioned in the article, it should be noted that Newt Gingrich is said to have received as much as $300,000 for his efforts on behalf of the ethanol lobby.

If you thinks that's all there is, well, think again. Remember when Sarah Palin slammed Michelle Obama's "childhood obesity" program for bringing even more government intervention in people's personal lives at the expense of personal Liberty and Freedom? Well, it seems that rather than side with Sarah Palin and personal responsibility, much like Big Government Statist Mike Huckabee, Pawlenty praised Michelle Obama's overreaching Nanny State insanity.

How about instead of government trying to run every minute detail of everyone's lives, we allow parents to do THEIR job. Oh, and bringing back physical fitness programs to all schools wouldn't be a bad idea either!

As I look at Tim Pawlenty I see yet another Big Government liberal pretending to be a Conservative. Pawlenty and more like him are exactly the reason why the United States is in the incredible mess it's in now.

2012 is the most important election in our nation's history. It will decide whether the Republic survives, or becomes little more than a failed agricultural experiment.

The problem isn't just beating Obama. With all of the anti-American things he's doing, plus his seemingly purposeful destruction of our economy, I think you could almost grab someone randomly off the streets and give Obama a run for his money come 2012.

Thing is, we not only have to beat Obama [and his sycophantic media] but the GOP establishment liberals as well. Guys like Pawlenty are part of the problem, not the solution.

For what it's worth, here's Pawlenty's less than inspiring new campaign video:

From The Office Of Why Chris Christie Will Never Be President: New Jersey Wants to Seize Your Unused Gift Cards And Travelers Checks!

Can we PLEASE stop worshiping these "shiny new object" politicians!

New Jersey's Chris Christie has become somewhat of a You Tube celebrity for his antics while taking on the union thugs who have cause the state all sorts of grief.

Of course all of this attention has the "look at the shiny new object he should be our next President !!!!!11!!!!!" crowd" having hot flashes. We saw the same thing after big time RINO Scott Brown was elected. He hadn't even made his victory speech yet and the usual suspects were already printing up "Brown 2012" t-shirts! Since then he's been a dismal failure for the Conservatives who sent money from around the country supporting his run. He's become a reliable vote, for the democrats!

Brown is not the only "shiny new object" who isn't what he was sold as, just one of the newer ones.

Which brings us back to Chris Christie.

Look, the man deserves credit for taking on the unions. That's a big deal, and they should be taken down. States that don't have "right to work laws" which pretty much put unions out of business, are crazy. But that's another blog topic.

Christie is a One-Note-Johnny. He's doing that one thing right, but he simply is not a Conservative in any way shape or form.

I'm not just talking about the fact Christie endorsed far left Senate candidate Mike Castle over Conservative Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, or his backing of establishment candidate Meg Whitman in California. Those do give us an insight of where his heart lies though.

No, Christie has bigger issues. He's weak on the Second Amendment, for amnesty for illegals, thinks it's marvelous radical Muslims want to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and is weak on the human rights of the unborn.

Even all of that is not as big of an outrage as this latest nonsense:

Now it seems that Christie is as heavy handed as any communist thug out there. Christie backs a law that would allow the state to literally steal private citizen's unused gift cards and travelers checks!

Think about this a minute.

You take your hard earned [and already taxed to death] money and buy a gift card for yourself or someone else. This is property. YOUR property! Just as if it was a house or an automobile. Or you could even think of it as cash, for that matter. No matter how you look at it though, it's government sanctioned theft of private property.

Fausta Wertz reports:

The legislation amended part of the state Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to include gift cards for the first time, allowing the state to consider a card abandoned two years after purchase and seize the balance.
The amendment also allowed the state to consider a traveler’s check abandoned if it is not cashed or spent three years or longer from the purchase date, instead of after 15 years under the previous law — the rule in most states.

Think about this for a minute. You have property, in the form of an unused gift card, or traveler's check, and just because you haven't found a use for it in a totally arbitrary amount of time [made up by greedy politicians who lust after money to fund more failure] those greedy politicians can come in and just steal it from you, and Chris Christie is on board with it!

Christie’s administration estimated that the amendment would bring in $80 million to help solve the state’s chronic budget problems. A key element of the legislation was that it would be retroactive, allowing the Treasury to seize money from travelers checks as far back as 1994.

Read more of Fausta's shocking report here.

So Chris Christie, who presents himself as a fiscal hawk, sees stealing the private property from hard working New Jersey citizens, already some of the most over-taxed in the nation, as a way to cure "chronic budget problems." I guess it never occurred the this genius to cut spending!

Oh, and this government sanction theft of private property will be retroactive all of the way back to 1994!

What's next?

Let's say you are a car guy, and restoring an old car, a process that can take years. Since you can't drive it while it's apart, and not "use" it, would Christie and his money hungry thugs come confiscate that?

How about a second home? What if you have a second home that is vacant, for whatever reason, will Christie want that next to feed the government monster?

Even better, what of vacant land? It's just sitting there and you aren't using it, why not let Christie and his thieves come and take it, by force of law!

After all, the government machine MUST BE FED!

This is no different than being mugged in an ally. No wonder New Jersey law makers [and Christie] don't want New Jersey citizens owning guns!

The media, which has built Christie up as some sort of "Conservative star," has been very silent on this, and the usually loud and obnoxious Governor hasn't made any You Tube videos bragging about it either. I wonder why ....

This is outrageous. Big Government run wild and completely out of control. And Christie, whose only claim to fame is as a supposed "fiscal Conservative," is not only enabling this fiasco, he's cheerleading it on!

This guy has no clue on how to handle out of control government. His only solution is to keep feeding the monster, not matter what it takes. 

Look, the bottom line is this. Christie is no Conservative, not even a pretend one. He's another Big Government progressive who will do anything, including stealing from his own people, to feed the beast. To continually grow and sustain the monster, rather than put it on a diet, and shrink it down to a manageable size. He's a fraud.

The bigger issue though, to me, is how some Conservatives act every time someone new pops up and does one thing right. Rather than setting back and watching to see if it's a fluke, and rather than going back and actually researching the person's record, they loose their minds and start claiming this "flavor-of-the-month" is the second coming, and the next thing you know, everyone is pushing that person as the next President!

Now Christie says he wants no part of the presidency, which is awesome, since I doubt America would want anything to do with Christie, if they knew the truth about him. But what scares me is some other "shiny new object" is going to pop-up out of nowhere and squeak past us all, only to turn out to be another Chris Christie, who is to the left of even some democrats. What do we do then?

What if, god forbid, this "shiny new object" got elected President, and we find out he's a Chris Christie clone? A Big Government progressive.

We already know that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are frauds, because EVERYONE has done their homework and looked at their extensive and disastrous records. We need to make sure that we fully vet anyone before were start proclaiming they are the "second coming."

People got behind Barack Obama not knowing a damned thing about him. Too lazy to look at his record and find out just how radical he was. How dangerous he was. I'd like to think, as Conservatives, we are more intelligent than that .... but I'm starting to have my doubts.

While this article is about Christie, and exposing him for the fraud he is, there is a bigger picture to consider.

Quite simply, stop worshiping every "shiny new object" that comes along! Instead sit back and watch them. See how they perform over time. Sadly, over time, most will let you down. But .... if one turns out to be the real deal, then .... and ONLY then .... should you get excited.

Hack politicians are a dime-a-dozen. Good solid leaders are hard to find. One thing is for sure, the latest "flavor-of-the month" politicians are seldom what they seem, and rarely, if ever, real leaders.

Aw, Dear Leader Obama Upset The Peasants Aren’t Bowing At His Feet On Tax Day

You know, I’m beginning to think French leader Nicolas Zarkozy was right when he called Barack Obama "a dangerous[ly] aliéné" a "mad lunatic" or as the European Union Times translates: "dangerously insane."

What else could explain this bizarre statement that was picked up by Dan Riehl:

Obama to American Taxpayers: "You would think they'd be saying thank you."

As Riehl reports"

Obama Mocks Tax Protesters

The one is amused. He honestly thinks he can still control the narrative the way he did during the campaign. Instapundit is posting reports from around the country. I've seen reports on Twitter of 25,000 in DC, 10,000 plus in Madison and Barry is amused. Keep laughing right through to November, bud. We'll see who's laughing then.

Obama makes light of anti-tax protests

MIAMI (AP) -- President Barack Obama says he's amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day.

Obama told a fundraiser in Miami on Thursday that he's cut taxes, contrary to claims of protesters.

He says he's been a little amused over the past couple of days when people at the rallies complained about taxes.

Quoting the president: "You would think they'd be saying thank you."

Oh man, does Obama’s ego know no bounds?

Allahpundit over at Hot Air adds this to the mix:

This may well be the single most obnoxious soundbite he’s uttered since his immortal bitter/clinger bon mot during the campaign. Which, if I’m not mistaken, also occurred at a fundraiser. Funny, the thoughts that bubble up when he’s among friends.

You’re welcome, America.

[...}

Let’s see. For starters, he’s lying: He has raised some taxes, contrary to his campaign pledge two years ago. But more than that, he seems almost to be laughing at people for being concerned about deficits. Did we or did we not learn just last night that a majority of tea partiers think their taxes are fair? They’re not some fanatic "zero tax" movement, in other words. They’re willing to pay what they’re paying now; what they want is a government small enough to make ends meet with what they’re paying. By The One’s logic, if he lowered the top marginal income tax bracket to one percent, we should expect tea partiers to fall on their knees and shout hallelujah even though it would mean annual deficits many times the trillion-dollar leviathans we’re currently saddled with. Anyone think that would happen? Anyone except Obama not yet grasp that conservatives want fiscal responsibility, not lower taxes at any and all costs?

What’s most amazing about this is that everyone understands the feds will need to raise taxes, and soon, to try to put a dent in our Everest of liabilities. That was the entire point of Paul Volcker, Obama’s own advisor, whispering about a VAT a few weeks ago. Tax hikes are simply a fait accompli, due in no small part to The One’s own unprecedented spending, and we’d probably have them already if not for his political cowardice in refusing to demand them before his reelection bid. And yet here he is, actually patting himself on the back for being a tax-cutter. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable, indeed.

We’re not done discussing Obama’s psychosis just yet though. As luck would have it, Jammie Wearing Fool picked up this little tidbit:

The famously humble Barack Obama gave an interview to Australian television and must think we won't find out about it here.

You've got to be kidding me.

United States president Barack Obama says he and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd share several personality traits - one of which is humility.

The US president made the comments to the 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien during an interview which will be aired on ABC1 tonight.

O'Brien says during his 20-minute interview with Mr Obama, the US president shed some light on his relationship with Australia's Prime Minister.

"It was interesting. Diplomats and politicians say nice things about each other when they're having international chats," O'Brien said.

But O'Brien says Mr Obama spoke candidly about their relationship - which has in the past been described as a "meeting of minds".

"He was quite expansive and quite genuine on what he saw as the commonality and connections between [he and Mr Rudd]. One of which was humility," O'Brien said.

Apparently he forgot to mention megalomania.

There is an update added and frankly, I’m not sure if it helps or hurts:

OK, so as it turns out it wasn't necessarily a direct quote in the interview, rather Obama saying he shares the same traits as Rudd, one of which is humility. Rudd is smart and humble, just like me!

Nothing Obama does makes sense to normal people. With the economy faltering and the budget deficit so large it’s unsustainable and likely to cause the nation to simply collapse, Obama creates the largest boondoggle in human history under the guise of "health care reform."

When even the most economically illiterate amongst us know, that when faced with a stagnant economy and record high unemployment, the last thing you do is increase taxes and create more burdens on business, Obama does just that. And is looking to do more. (See cap and trade)

With the world’s worst nations on the verge causing serious problems, and maybe even a world war, Obama seeks to slash defense budgets and limit not only America’s ability to defend herself, but also leave our allies out in the cold.

Obama has alienated every one of our allies and coddled every one of our enemies. He has become openly hostile to Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East, which has emboldened all of Israel’s enemies.

The list of insane moves could go on for quite some time, but you get the idea.

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with the French, but let me going on record as saying I tend to agree with Nicolas Sarkozy. Barack Obama is "a dangerous[ly] aliéné."